PL MINUTES 10211986 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

w -3- Proponents: Albert Plaisted and Charles Anderson (same as for conditional use permit) . Opponents: none. Staff input: suggested recommendation of denial because center already has large pylon sign. proposed two alternatives available to applicant: a. wall signage in lieu of existing non-conforming roof sign; or b. leave that signage in place rather than lose "grandfathered-in" status. reported Eberhardt representative had met with center owners in New York and a plan for renovating the store fronts and for uniform signage for the center had been developed as per colored sketch provided the City. told applicant the current City Ordinance allows only gas sations and shopping centers to have pylon signage; hence, the sign on the Mobil station next door. Commission Recommends Council Deny Free-Standing Sign for Dairy Queen Motion by Madden, seconded by Werenicz to recommend the Council deny the request for a free-standing sign for the St. Anthony Dairy Queen at 2612 Highway 88, in anticipation that uniform signage for the entire shopping center would be forthcoming and the City could best deal with that probability by not granting any further signage variances in the St. Anthony Shopping Center. • Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Madden told the applicant that the Commission could only address his request for a free-standing sign at this hearing and the status of the rotating sign he now has on top of the building had not changed. The Commissioner suggested Mr. Plaisted sit down with staff to explore the other options he might have for signage acceptable to the City. REQUEST FOR SIGNAGE FOR J. T. VARGAS REAL ESTATE OFFICE AT 3909 SILVER LAKE ROAD Request: variance to Ordinance regulations related to free-standing signs to allow installation of an 8 foot X 3 foot (24 square feet on each side) sign in same location where several unacceptable signs for previous tenants had been sited. Proponents: Jose T. Vargas, same address, who indicated he would be willing to meet all the Ordinance requirements for this sign. Opponents: none (and no calls received by staff) . Staff input: perceived neither the sign erected by the last tenant or the sketch of the sign the applicant proposes to replace it with was exactly what the Commission had in mind for the "groundhugging a sign which should have had no more than six inches between it and the berm below • it" the City had previously approved;